The first president’s reflections on politics

Recently, at a meeting with the participants of The Day’s Summer School of Journalism, Leonid KRAVCHUK was at his best. He spoke about things you can only hear from a nation’s first president, the man who has seen politics in all its forms (from political romanticism to ordinary cynicism), and who has elaborated his own philosophy of power relations.

The students, who did not fail to realize the uniqueness of the occasion, prepared for the meeting in advance. In a couple of days they had a chance to make use of their knowledge of modern history, as the conversation focused on the most essential problems of Ukraine, i.e., the mistakes made by politicians, why Ukrainians let this happen, and what should be done. By the way, Kravchuk has already explained his views on the events and politicians in a book which he is currently preparing for print. The book will be titled Political Reflections.

Dmytro CHALY, student, secondary school No. 82, Kyiv:

Mr. Kravchuk, you are seen as the father of Ukrainian democracy. How do you think your “child” is feeling today?

Leonid KRAVCHUK:

“In my opinion, this child is not really happy. To put it more precisely, our democracy is only learning to walk. Does every person feel all right in this country? Are they the masters of their destinies? Are they ready to defend this country and stand up for democracy? I don’t think so.

“I tend to take all our talk shows with a pinch of salt, but I would like to use one as an example. On Channel Inter a question was asked on air, ‘Are you ready to sacrifice the freedoms of democracy for the sake of discipline and order?’ 68 percent of those present said they were. I checked the composition of the audience: the young people prevailed over the older ones. So I ask myself a question: is there a certain state in man that makes him unable (or unwilling) to live a free, democratic life — all for the sake of ‘order’ elsewhere, for someone else?

“There is a democracy for the people and a democracy for power. Thus, power ignores the possibility of democracy. If necessary, they will act outside the law and outside the Constitution. When they allow themselves to do such things, their voters think it’s normal to behave like that. Our powers that be have always abused authority — or at least our habit to obey and fear. We were brought up this way. Thus, they feel that people are not ready to stand up for democracy. The Orange Revolution showed that people can do it, but the disappointment that soon set in killed everything that could develop, then and there.”

Larysa IVSHYNA, The Day’s chief editor:

Suppressed it for a while — or killed for good?

L. K.: “I think just for a while.”

L. I.: For how long?

L. K.: “If the regime continues to act as aggressively as it is acting now, it will take less time.”

Alisa HORDIICHUK, Ostroh Academy National University:

Mr. Kravchuk, you were the only President of Ukraine to resign voluntarily. Could you tell what you were feeling then?

L. K.: “I would like to make one correction. I voluntarily agreed to go into election. I can say that it was an unprecedented thing on former Soviet territory. It became a sensation, because everyone was used to the pattern that a leader should die in office. I was later told more than once that I had not taken the situation into account, and the people, who even today remain ignorant of democracy, had taken advantage of my democratic nature.

“What was I feeling? I felt the only thing: the need for a breakthrough. If I didn’t do it, there would be no example of the new power, new behavior, and new philosophy. Power is not permanent. It is given by the people, and it is taken back by the people. He who has the power and who feels the situation must think of the nation and the consequences of his behavior, rather than just of power.

“I believed that after I left, democracy would expand, but it turned out just the opposite. Unfortunately, today we have even more of the Soviet Union than we did in 1990. Nowhere else in Europe is the communist party in power, but in Ukraine it is. In 1999, Kuchma let them take part in the presidential election. But at that time they were not in power formally, only mentally. Today, they are formally in the coalition, and they have their quotas. Europe regards us as a nation that is moving back rather than forward. The cure for this depends on the people’s culture. People say that communists have changed. But what about the monument to Stalin? ‘Well, and what about the monument to Bandera?’ they will retort. There is no critical evaluation of the situation which might provoke some reflections.”

Tetiana KUCHERUK, Ostroh Academy National University:

Mr. Kravchuk, I have a question concerning the entire period of Ukraine’s independence. Can the current situation be caused by the absence of a nation-building idea? Because the idea, which was at one time propagated by the People’s Movement, never got much feedback from society. What should be changed, the people, or the idea?

L. K.: “We cannot develop an idea in office and tell the people, ‘Here you are, we have formulated the national idea for you.’ It has to develop within society. For me, the national idea means the development of a nationally conscious Ukraine. Not simply a state per se, but a country with a rich national and spiritual life.

“The word ‘national’ must permeate everything, from economy to politics to the spiritual sphere. We cannot say that we have a national li­terature, but our economy is international. When we keep emphasizing such things, people will realize that we must develop our own state. If we don’t do that, people won’t care where they live.

“I must admit that in the early 1990s, this po­-licy wasn’t being implemented actively. Other forms of the national idea where sought for – for instance, that of wealthy life. True enough, everyone wants to be comfortably off, but are we going to gain any wealth if the people turn into internationalists, if they forget their origins, their birthplace, their mother tongue and songs? That will be an absolutely different state!

“All these ‘leaps’ in power, from Kravchuk to Kuchma, Kuchma to Yushchenko, Yushchenko to Yanu­ko­vych, with each one propagating his own scheme of the development of Ukraine, never succeeded in formula­ting a Ukrainian national idea. Yes, Yushchenko tried to do it, but in my opinion he was absorbed in a constant search — and his own splendor. He thought that everyone looked to him for orders, and no sooner he had uttered a word than it would be implemented right then and there.

“I think today the regime will not talk about the national idea, because it (unfortunately) is abusing the passiveness of the Ukrainian people. This reminds one of Pushkin’s lines describing the Russia of his time:
Go on grazing, ye peaceful nations,
The call of honor won’t wake you up.
Why should herds need the gifts of freedom?
Their lot is to be either slaughtered or shorn.”

Anastasia SAMOSHYNA, Taras Shev­chenko National University, Kyiv:

Mr. Kravchuk, what is the reason for the incapability of the Ukrainian political forces to agree on a consciously national development of the state? Such splits among national Ukrainian forces can be found at virtually every stage of Ukrainian history.

L. K.: “We don’t have true Ukrainian forces. For one, I cannot say that Oleh Tiahnybok’s political movement is not a Ukrainian force. But if you analyze his actions, you’ll see that they do more harm than good? He seems to be fighting for Ukraine, but the methods and forms of this struggle are imperfect, to put it mildly. Maybe, he lacks true Ukrainian power, a true Ukrainian soul, proper knowledge and experience in the diplomatic, political, moral, ethical, and mental aspects?

“I would suggest the history of The Day as a positive example of a felicitous promotion of the Ukrainian idea. I have seen this periodical go through all sorts of complicated stages of its development — but it always stuck to the line it chose. In this paper, you will never find materials which would comment on controversial issues in an abrupt, uncompromising, and one-sided manner. But it would be a complete nonsense to say that it is a non-Ukrainian newspaper.

“Following the developments in this country, I often see political forces prostitute themselves, change their philosophies for money. The Day is always consistent in its convictions and analyses.

“The pro-Ukrainian political forces should always remember that desire alone is not enough: it also takes skills, one’s own standpoint, and diplomatic and historical training. A lack of these crucial components entails adequate results.”

L. I.: The main problem with all of our politicians is a lack of competence and sound formal education. This is what enables an individual to be successful and competitive, which nowadays is a sine qua non condition. At one moment, the Ukrainian people took to the Maidan, made an effort, and brought to the surface a host of allegedly new politicians — but if they are incompetent, they are doomed to defeat. They will blame their defeat on the people, who eventually dispersed and were no longer in charge. But a man working at a big bakery cannot monitor the president and prime minister on a daily basis. His job is to bake bread. The politicians have their own assignments, and this is where better qualifications are necessary.

I have seen your public appeals, and we printed some of them. I think it is correct, because you, as the nation’s first president and citizen, highlight the problems and key areas which require immediate attention. So, has there been any response from the president to your appeals concerning ani­mal rights and others? Are there any channels for communication?

L. K.: “Yes, there are some. I have already spoken with the president — not for the sake of speaking, but trying to solve other problems. He responds. The only trouble is that reaching the president involves a number of obstacles. First of all, these are certain individuals who would not like the president to listen to anyone else but them, because he can hear and heed. Because he would then understand that there are other people to listen to. This is the perennial power of the administrative apparatus.”

L. I.: Is there a possibility for Yanukovych to evolve?

L. K.: “We had one recent meeting. We were discussing the book I am now finishing, Political Reflections, a large book of diary entries. I told him that Ukraine’s president can only make history as a Ukrainian president. Being Ukrainian is more important than economic or social successes in the long run. There cannot be a semi-Ukrainian pre­sident.

“This is the beginning of image building. But the president cannot be too Ukrainian. I mean, with overdeveloped national sentiments, blind to everything else. We are living in a globalized world, a world of compromise: sometimes giving way, partly taking, and partly giving. We need a humane, Ukrainian, and independent president who would defend the positions of the national strategic interests of Ukraine.

“I know this from Leonid Kuchma’s experience, who at first championed the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian language. Then, after half a year, he was getting ready for his visit to the United States. He went to get Patriarch Filaret’s blessing. Then he stopped talking so much of Russian as a state language. He understood that he was to be either the president of Ukraine, or a governor in the Russian Empire. This is inadmissible for a person elected by the people.”

L. I.: Can Yanukovych be the president of the entire country?

L. K.: “Yes, he can, but he does not know how to do it.

L. I. : Can you offer him some advice?

L. K.: “He is excessively dependent on his entourage, business, and oligarchs. For instance, I have told him that I respected Dmytro Tabachnyk. He is an educated person. But there is a problem which prevents them from uniting Ukraine today. It is still possible to appoint this person to another post without hurting his feelings. Yanukovych cannot appoint anyone to a new post. But here we need a decision which is absolutely independent from business and other influences, a decision for Ukraine.

“For example, let’s take the recent vote on creating a provisional commission of inquiry in case of the Stockholm court ruling. Akhmetov and his group voted for the commission. No one believed that such a thing was ever possible. That the communists voted ‘for’ was clear, they could not do otherwise. But Akhmetov... It means that there already is a conflict somewhere. It is very difficult to maneuver among all those interests. Yet I believe that everything will eventually change. It’s either him saying, ‘I am President!’ or them telling him, ‘No, you are only President as long as we will have you.’ I think he will have enough willpower and understanding to say, ‘I am President, and I will stick to the Constitution!’ He must say this, and he will.

Iryna BOCHAR, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv:

I have got a grant from the program ZAVTRA.UA, Viktor Pinchuk Foundation. At this year’s Forum of grant holders, Pinchuk suggested that Ukraine should be more actively involved in global political processes. He said that our top political leaders should contribute to solving the problems of the global climate change and inequality, rather than focus exclusively on domestic politics. What is your opinion on this?

L. K.: “He is correct, but there is a difference: when this is said by Obama, everyone knows that Obama is backed by six trillion dollars. So he can influence the economy. I do not rule out that we must take part in the discussion on this issue. But will we get invited first?

“If Pinchuk organizes, say, an international meeting in the Crimea, it means that he has the money to invite, pay, accommodate, feed, etc. Meanwhile, the regime is somewhat different: if the regime invites, it does not only tell that it is good. The regime says, ‘It is not just nice – we have already done it.

“That is to say, I do not reject the idea, it is correct. The question is whether Ukraine is ready in all senses to render real aid in the financial, political, and diplomatic aspects and whether it has got relevant experience to offer, and make it interesting for anybody.”

Olha SAVCHENKO, Drahomanov National Pedagogical University:

Mr. Kravchuk, who among the Ukrainian politicians could you call a true man?

L. K.: “Hrushevsky.”

O. S.: And among the present-day politicians?

L. K.: “There are a lot of interesting politicians. In my opinion, Serhii Tihipko belongs there. He can become a very serious politician. He has education, culture, and profound knowledge of the financial sphere. Tihipko also has international experience, but he needs to rise to a certain level, so that the others can see.”

L. I.: What about his character?

L. K.: “Character? He’s got a character. I know him personally — we chanced to work together: I was chairman for the Administrative commission, and he was my deputy. We are on very friendly terms.

“I asked him this question, ‘But you have betrayed. Why did you come back to the regime which you had criticized so relentlessly?’ And I listened to his really weighty arguments. First, the reforms are still necessary. He submitted and signed 16 draft bills out of 30 something. If they don’t vote for them, there is every reason to turn to the people and say that ‘I... so-and-so, sacrificed the opportunity to be ‘above’ and joined the government to suggest reforms, but since they will not vote for them, I’m going to leave them.’

“Speaking from the political perspective, it is a very good maneuver to build an image. This guy is no fool. And second, he has fundamental education.”

L. I.: And what can you say about Arsenii Yatseniuk?

L. K.: “Yatseniuk has a pretty high level of education. Yet what appeals to me is his method. He never hurries and he never gets excited. Actions speak louder than words. However, let us remember that in his present situation, Yatseniuk is also learning. I like his very clear and abrupt formulations used for the criticism of the present regime. I have read his criticism of the Taxation Code and I can say that he is a true professional. He has an excellent memory, and his Ukrainian is quite good. In a word, a modern man.”

Lina TYMOSHCHUK, Ostroh Academy National University:

Mr. Kravchuk, the children of our present politicians belong to the so-called jet set, and their primary language is Russian. What about your family? Do your children and grandchildren keep national traditions, do they speak the state language?

L. K.: “They speak not only Ukrainian, but English and Russian as well. Of course, at home they speak Ukrainian — but not because someone makes them do it. I think it’s natural, because I spoke Ukrainian with my own parents, as well as with my grandfather and grandmother. I cannot just go and forget my life experiences, they are too deep within me.

“My children and grandchildren normally speak Ukrainian at home, but I have noticed that they tend to speak Russian with their peers. I asked them, why is it so? I have noticed more than once that students speak Ukrainian in class, and Russian outside the classroom.

“When I traveled to Canada and the USA with my grandson, we had meetings with Ukrainians. My grandson speaks perfect literary Ukrainian, even better than me, because I sometimes speak in the vernacular. My granddaughter Mariika also speaks Ukrainian, English, and Russian.

“Sometimes we may have heated arguments about language and culture. They think that the Russian culture and literature are richer than Ukrainian, and that we shouldn’t dissociate ourselves from Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Gogol. The world literature was translated and published in Rus­sian, so all the library resources were in Russian, too. Thus, it is necessary to learn Russian, at least for reading Russian literature. Indeed, I understand Pushkin in Russian better, but I cannot read Shevchenko in Russian after I read him in Ukrai­nian at school.

“My point is that Ukrainian books, newspapers, and TV should prevail both in number and in quality, and children should hear Ukrainian from birth, otherwise... I remember telling a popular Ukrainian parable: Why do nightingales sing, and when do nightingales sing? The nightingale sings when females are brooding — to humor them. When a nestling is formed in the egg, it hears its father’s song, and it is a nightingale’s song. Later, a baby nightingale is hatched; it grows up and sings like a nightingale should.

“If something like this happened in each Ukrainian family, school, or college, we wouldn’t face any problems. Thus, it is necessary to create foundations: technical, material, and psycholo­gical. It is a comprehensive problem. There is the Russian language, the Ukrainian language, and the Azarov language (laughs). And yet it is good that the president ordered the teaching of Ukrainian: a minister or civil servant must know the state language.”

Viktoria PRASOL, Ukraine University:

July 16 is the 20th anniversary of the Declaration of State Sovereignity of Ukraine. Tell me please if you would like to amend it, or add anything to it?

L. K.: “I made all the amendments to the text of the Constitution which I wanted to make. It became document number one. Later, this Constitution was altered, but it was not my initiative. Now, they want to change it again – of course, to suit their needs.

“At that time, the Declaration satisfied all of the criteria, which could be allowed in the Soviet times. That is why what was passed and what was suggested was the maximum that could be done. Of course, if we were to write this Declaration today, it would look quite different.

“On July 15 we are going to Belarus — Roman Bezsmertny, our ambassador there, is holding a meeting to share how the Declaration was passed. It is interesting and instructive. That is big history, as the people who wrote and passed it, are leaving with each year. Many of those who sat in my study writing the text of the Declaration are now gone. Time flies, therefore one must record the first-hand information on those historical moments.”